Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (74 users)
Active: 6237 users | |
|
| ThirdDegree United States. May 31 2012 22:18. Posts 313 | Profile # | |
| |
|
| Vega62a May 31 2012 22:26. Posts 702 | Profile Blog # |
Anthony Bourdain pointed out that while the videos presented in California's case were disturbing, "no reputable chef would buy such a product."
I would expect anybody who is not a vegetarian who vehemently opposes foie gras production to also carefully source all of their meat, especially chicken, to avoid the absurd cruelty seen in many factory farms. The problem I have with this controversy is that it's easy. Plenty of people will buy the cheapest chicken in the store, because they want to feed themselves without spending a lot of money, but when presented with the videos you posted, they'll huff and puff and shout "it's cruel! Ban it!"
That said, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that chickens are mistreated doesn't really have an impact on the fact that ducks are mistreated. Here's my honest feeling on the matter.
As humans, we do really horrible things without realizing it, basically all the time. When you fill up your car, you're contributing to polution, smog, and (let's be honest, although I'd rather not start a fight about it, and will not reply to any provocation on the matter) climate change, as well as human exploitation and dictatorship in the middle-east. When you grab a styrofoam container in a Chinese restaurant and then throw it away, that helps fill up a landfill in a way which will basically never biodegrade. When you shop at Wal-Mart instead of your local store, you're contributing to a company which abuses its minimum-wage employees and aggressively trys to destroy local businesses. When you go on a vacation to a tropical paradise, you're contributing to the destruction of vital natural resources and the pillaging of the local ecosystem, as well as potentially exploitation of the local population.
You get the idea.
We should do our best not to do horrible things. We should take vacations to places where we know workers are ethically treated and the resort was constructed in a minimially harmful manner. We should avoid styrofoam. We should bus, or walk, or bike, and if we have to drive, we should drive the most fuel-efficient car we can afford.
But to be frank, exploitation and torture and blatant abuse are everywhere. And we can do what we can do, but no person can be expected to avoid 100% of everything that is harmful to somebody else. And if we do choose to partake in that something, we need to acknowledge that we're doing what we're doing, call a spade a spade, and try to find the least harmful version of it.
So, I don't use styrofoam when I can avoid it (ie when it's not shoved in my face). I'm planning on getting a hybrid when I can afford it. I take vacations to campsites. I buy locally sourced chicken when I can find it, and go out of my way to do so. And I eat foie gras, and I acknowledge that it's inhumane to a degree. I also acknowledge that the places I eat it from probably don't source their foie gras from people who do what we saw on the video (this does not make it sunshine and roses), because when I do buy it, it's a once-in-a-year dinner at a restaurant whose chef has a name that might be recognized, and I've had to put money away to eat there.
And that's the best I can do, and I don't think that makes me any worse than anybody else.
So if we're going to ban foie gras, we had best start shutting down factory farms while we're at it.Last edit: 2012-05-31 22:33:16 |
| | Content of my posts reflects only my personal opinions, and not those of any employer or subsidiary |
|
|
| danl9rm United States. May 31 2012 22:33. Posts 2468 | Profile Blog # |
Why is this even a question?
Of course it should be banned. |
| | "Science has so well established that the preborn baby in the womb is a living human being that most pro-choice activists have conceded the point. ..since the abortion proponents have lost the science argument, they are now advocating an existential one." |
|
|
| Krowser Canada. May 31 2012 22:33. Posts 787 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 22:26 Vega62a wrote:Anthony Bourdain pointed out that while the videos presented in California's case were disturbing, "no reputable chef would buy such a product." I would expect anybody who is not a vegetarian who vehemently opposes foie gras production to also carefully source all of their meat, especially chicken, to avoid the absurd cruelty seen in many factory farms. The problem I have with this controversy is that it's easy. Plenty of people will buy the cheapest chicken in the store, because they want to feed themselves without spending a lot of money, but when presented with the videos you posted, they'll huff and puff and shout "it's cruel! Ban it!" That said, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that chickens are mistreated doesn't really have an impact on the fact that ducks are mistreated. Here's my honest feeling on the matter. As humans, we do really horrible things without realizing it, basically all the time. When you fill up your car, you're contributing to polution, smog, and (let's be honest, although I'd rather not start a fight about it, and will not reply to any provocation on the matter) climate change, as well as human exploitation and dictatorship in the middle-east. When you grab a styrofoam container in a Chinese restaurant and then throw it away, that helps fill up a landfill in a way which will basically never biodegrade. When you shop at Wal-Mart instead of your local store, you're contributing to a company which abuses its minimum-wage employees and aggressively trys to destroy local businesses. When you go on a vacation to a tropical paradise, you're contributing to the destruction of vital natural resources and the pillaging of the local ecosystem, as well as potentially exploitation of the local population. You get the idea. We should do our best not to do horrible things. We should take vacations to places where we know workers are ethically treated and the resort was constructed in a minimially harmful manner. We should avoid styrofoam. We should bus, or walk, or bike, and if we have to drive, we should drive the most fuel-efficient car we can afford. But to be frank, exploitation and torture and blatant abuse are everywhere. And we can do what we can do, but no person can be expected to avoid 100% of everything that is harmful to somebody else. And if we do choose to partake in that something, we need to acknowledge that we're doing what we're doing, call a spade a spade, and try to find the least harmful version of it. So, I don't use styrofoam when I can avoid it. I'm planning on getting a hybrid when I can afford it. I take vacations to campsites. I buy locally sourced chicken when I can find it, and go out of my way to do so. And I eat foie gras, and I acknowledge that it's inhumane to a degree. I also acknowledge that the places I eat it from probably don't source their foie gras from people who do what we saw on the video, because when I do buy it, it's a once-in-a-year dinner at a restaurant whose chef has a name that might be recognized, and I've had to put money away to eat there. And that's the best I can do.
Well written.
I'm on a similar page. Foie gras DOES taste good, thats why people are even allowing this kind of treatment to animals but I'd be more than willing to survive without it, considering the way it's produced.
I think the problem stems from the fact that humans have been producing foie gras for a few millennia. (According to wiki, the Egyptians started it). Back then, slavery and torture were common things so people couldn't care less about the well being of ducks or geese.
Nowadays, we have green and pro animal movements that raise awareness about issues like this and our society is changing, evolving, and starting to realise that we should fine different means of producing our luxuries.
I'm willing to bet that in a few hundred years, if ''everything goes well and we don't blow ourselves up'', factory farms will finally be replaced by something a little less insane.
On May 31 2012 22:33 danl9rm wrote:
Why is this even a question?
Of course it should be banned.
Because it's been done for so long. Alcohol and cigarettes are rated as one of the worse drugs in circulation, which take more lives and causes many more problems than hard drugs like heroin. And yet they are sold at every street corner.
Why? Because we've had them for too long and they are part of our culture and economy. You can't close a cigarette factory, think about how many people will lose their jobs. It's the same for foie gras, it's been around for too long.Last edit: 2012-05-31 22:35:58 |
| | D3 and Pho, the way to go. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=340709 |
|
|
| Vega62a May 31 2012 22:45. Posts 702 | Profile Blog # |
On May 31 2012 22:33 Krowser wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 22:26 Vega62a wrote:Anthony Bourdain pointed out that while the videos presented in California's case were disturbing, "no reputable chef would buy such a product." I would expect anybody who is not a vegetarian who vehemently opposes foie gras production to also carefully source all of their meat, especially chicken, to avoid the absurd cruelty seen in many factory farms. The problem I have with this controversy is that it's easy. Plenty of people will buy the cheapest chicken in the store, because they want to feed themselves without spending a lot of money, but when presented with the videos you posted, they'll huff and puff and shout "it's cruel! Ban it!" That said, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that chickens are mistreated doesn't really have an impact on the fact that ducks are mistreated. Here's my honest feeling on the matter. As humans, we do really horrible things without realizing it, basically all the time. When you fill up your car, you're contributing to polution, smog, and (let's be honest, although I'd rather not start a fight about it, and will not reply to any provocation on the matter) climate change, as well as human exploitation and dictatorship in the middle-east. When you grab a styrofoam container in a Chinese restaurant and then throw it away, that helps fill up a landfill in a way which will basically never biodegrade. When you shop at Wal-Mart instead of your local store, you're contributing to a company which abuses its minimum-wage employees and aggressively trys to destroy local businesses. When you go on a vacation to a tropical paradise, you're contributing to the destruction of vital natural resources and the pillaging of the local ecosystem, as well as potentially exploitation of the local population. You get the idea. We should do our best not to do horrible things. We should take vacations to places where we know workers are ethically treated and the resort was constructed in a minimially harmful manner. We should avoid styrofoam. We should bus, or walk, or bike, and if we have to drive, we should drive the most fuel-efficient car we can afford. But to be frank, exploitation and torture and blatant abuse are everywhere. And we can do what we can do, but no person can be expected to avoid 100% of everything that is harmful to somebody else. And if we do choose to partake in that something, we need to acknowledge that we're doing what we're doing, call a spade a spade, and try to find the least harmful version of it. So, I don't use styrofoam when I can avoid it. I'm planning on getting a hybrid when I can afford it. I take vacations to campsites. I buy locally sourced chicken when I can find it, and go out of my way to do so. And I eat foie gras, and I acknowledge that it's inhumane to a degree. I also acknowledge that the places I eat it from probably don't source their foie gras from people who do what we saw on the video, because when I do buy it, it's a once-in-a-year dinner at a restaurant whose chef has a name that might be recognized, and I've had to put money away to eat there. And that's the best I can do.
Well written. I'm on a similar page. Foie gras DOES taste good, thats why people are even allowing this kind of treatment to animals but I'd be more than willing to survive without it, considering the way it's produced. I think the problem stems from the fact that humans have been producing foie gras for a few millennia. (According to wiki, the Egyptians started it). Back then, slavery and torture were common things so people couldn't care less about the well being of ducks or geese. Nowadays, we have green and pro animal movements that raise awareness about issues like this and our society is changing, evolving, and starting to realise that we should fine different means of producing our luxuries. I'm willing to bet that in a few hundred years, if ''everything goes well and we don't blow ourselves up'', factory farms will finally be replaced by something a little less insane.
Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 22:33 danl9rm wrote:
Why is this even a question?
Of course it should be banned.
Because it's been done for so long. Alcohol and cigarettes are rated as one of the worse drugs in circulation, which take more lives and causes many more problems than hard drugs like heroin. And yet they are sold at every street corner. Why? Because we've had them for too long and they are part of our culture and economy. You can't close a cigarette factory, think about how many people will lose their jobs. It's the same for foie gras, it's been around for too long.
Thank you 
Foie gras is delicious, and it is a part of France's culture and tradition. We're seeing similar problems with eating whale in Japan - the method of production is harmful and problematic, but it's a piece of their culture, their tradition, so they're really not that down with the notion of getting rid of it.
I certainly wouldn't die if I wasn't able to eat foie gras. But I think if we're going to tackle the issue of animal cruelty, we should take on the really bad, really prevalent ones (factory farming) first and then move on to the niche issues like foie gras.
But, let's be honest with one another here. There's certainly never anything morally inconsistent about banning something that is cruel. Just because something else is more cruel doesn't mean you haven't done something good. The simple fact is that I want to be able to eat foie gras. I like it. A lot. I would gladly pay top dollar for humanely-created foie gras, because I don't eat it more than once a year anyway, but when I do, it's part of what makes my month. That's what makes this argument difficult - nobody really sits around and says "You know what I bet ducks really enjoy? Having engorged livers." It is harmful to a degree. All I can really say is that it's not at the top of my "this is awful" list, and I'm willing to allow this to happen, and nobody can rightfully tell me I'm a bad person for it.
Edit: The link in your signature made me happy. Pho is one of my favorites Last edit: 2012-05-31 22:47:20 |
| | Content of my posts reflects only my personal opinions, and not those of any employer or subsidiary |
|
|
 Silvertine United States. May 31 2012 22:50. Posts 509 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 20:38 Emix_Squall wrote:
Show nested quote +
I do not need to know everything about something to have an opinion. If that were true, none of us could ever have an opinion. OK?
I'm not saying morals are unimportant, they're practically vital for society. I'm saying compared to "cultural differences" ie "is it really OK to put ketchup on this?", it's easier to relate to animal cruelty because we ourselves feel pain and we know it's not enjoyable. It's less complex than "true purpose" of a potter or a man who shoes horses.
I don't think my opinion shall prevail. I've spent too long arguing with people to think that. I usually stay away from threads like this. I was just in the mood to share today. I realize there's no such thing as "winning" an argument. All you can hope for, especially in vague morality threads like this, is that you gained a few converts, or enforced someone's beliefs through strength of argument.
The "I don't tell you how to do your job, don't tell me how to do mine" argument is categorically retarded, because you might be terrible at your job.
You feel strongly about this, you are yourself unable to "stfu", so tell me, what are the cultural implications of banning foie-gras?
And finally, being French myself, it would be too complicated to explain it all but let's just say Foie-Gras is too important in many ways in France for me to listen to people (not targeting at anyone, that's a general "people") who have never seen a real goose/duck talking about animal cruelty and how we should stop this inhuman treatments.
How could it be that complicated and why should anyone find a mere sense of tradition so convincing? There are thousands of immoral customs that have successfully been discarded. You can be sure that there were people defending them with the same logic that you're employing now.
What difference does it make whether someone has seen a duck or a goose before? I've never seen a seal but I'm pretty sure people shouldn't be clubbing them. And besides, how many people haven't seen both regularly?
Not saying it's a gentle process, far from it, but it's not like the duck was screaming in pain for the next 4 hours
Do you really think that's an intelligent standard?
they don't enjoy being force fed (I guess ...)
You don't have to guess, it's a fact.
but once they are, it just takes them a few minutes to recover and they seem to be doing perfectly fine after.
You really don't have any way of knowing that. Even if it was true it doesn't mean that the animal wasn't in horrible pain. There's all sorts of abuse that doesn't cause permanent damage and can be recovered from in minutes.
|
|
|
| Krowser Canada. May 31 2012 22:58. Posts 787 | Profile # | |
| | D3 and Pho, the way to go. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=340709 |
|
|
| striderxxx Canada. May 31 2012 23:01. Posts 442 | Profile # |
| who is to say the force feeding the ducks is inhumane? how much different is it then feeding a bottle of milk to a baby? both ducks and baby would die if they weren't at least fed. |
|
|
| Requizen United States. May 31 2012 23:07. Posts 7541 | Profile Blog # |
I'm somewhat torn when it comes to these things. Of course I don't like mistreating animals, but it feels somewhat odd to call them out on that when you know the animals are going to be killed anyway. If you're raising an animal with the expressed purpose of it being killed and eaten, I have a hard time calling anything forced onto it "inhumane". I'm an animal lover, but I can separate animals that are cared for and loved from those that are food. I don't feel bad about biting into a steak, and I don't get flustered over whether or not the cow was pampered before they killed it and sliced it into tasty chunks.
Dunno, maybe I've just become a bit detached from some things lately. |
|
|
| Attican Denmark. May 31 2012 23:16. Posts 529 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 07:03 brokor wrote:
foie gras is delicious. i only get to eat it like 2-3 times a year but when the restaurant gets it right it is awesome. i go every year to a small(but highly expensive :/) french restaurant in frankfurt and they serve the best foie gras i have ever tasted.
i agree it is animal cruelty but i mean c'mon if we were to satisfy the hippies on every count of animal cruelty we would be starving or worse eat that disgusting vegan stuff.
hitler won after all :/
You might very well be an idiot.
On topic: It really seems like the easiest solution would be to just have regular inspections to make sure that foie gras producers aren't breaking any animal cruelty laws and doing whatever can be done to minimize the pain involved in force feeding. Or just find some way of making foie gras without force feeding, I don't see why that hasn't been done. |
| | Elfen Lied, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, Angel Beats!, Clannad, Clannad After Story |
|
|
 Myles United States. May 31 2012 23:21. Posts 4343 | Profile Blog # |
On May 31 2012 23:07 Requizen wrote:
I'm somewhat torn when it comes to these things. Of course I don't like mistreating animals, but it feels somewhat odd to call them out on that when you know the animals are going to be killed anyway. If you're raising an animal with the expressed purpose of it being killed and eaten, I have a hard time calling anything forced onto it "inhumane". I'm an animal lover, but I can separate animals that are cared for and loved from those that are food. I don't feel bad about biting into a steak, and I don't get flustered over whether or not the cow was pampered before they killed it and sliced it into tasty chunks.
Dunno, maybe I've just become a bit detached from some things lately.
Even if the animal is being raised just be killed, that shouldn't mean it's ok for them to live in misery until that fateful day. There's nothing inherently wrong with killing an animal for food, but it wrong for them to live a life suffering because of that, imo ofc. |
|
|
| r00ty Germany. May 31 2012 23:24. Posts 529 | Profile # |
Why does every discussion lead to hitler equasions? (on the first 2 pages already, c'mon) Just to make it clear he was not a vegetarian and he drank alcohol! It is a self created myth, trying to be a role model. His body guard Rochus Misch and the family who managed his "Berghof" in Berchtesgarden could tell of a lot of occasions where he drank beer or champaigne and ate meat or caviar.
That said, i don't really have an opinion towards foie gras because i never ate it and never would. Reasons being the way it's produced and me generally not liking white meat very much and despising intestines. (childhood memories of liver and brain dishes, yak!)
I'm a heavy red meat eater though, preferring pork all the way (this magical animal turns trash into bacon!). I just stick to basical rules: Avoid super market meat and buy at a local butchery. Over here it's not a big difference in price and you really taste it! Same with every animal product: If it's super cheap there has to be something wrong with it. (doesn't mean everything is fine as long as it's expesive of course) |
| | "I play with passion and fire. I have to accept that sometimes this fire does harm." - Eric Cantona |
|
|
| BrTarolg United Kingdom. May 31 2012 23:27. Posts 2498 | Profile Blog # |
Btw the reason im buying that foie gras is not because its ethically made, no because i'd imagine it tastes a lot better
Quality comes with care. I don't buy well farmed meat because its ethical, it's because the meat is of a much higher quality than factory intensively farmed meat
Does the fact it's ethical make me feel any better about buying it, yeah it does a bit. |
|
|
| Eggm United States. May 31 2012 23:27. Posts 152 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 07:39 HotShizz wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 07:26 supervizor wrote:
On May 31 2012 07:03 brokor wrote:
foie gras is delicious. i only get to eat it like 2-3 times a year but when the restaurant gets it right it is awesome. i go every year to a small(but highly expensive :/) french restaurant in frankfurt and they serve the best foie gras i have ever tasted.
i agree it is animal cruelty but i mean c'mon if we were to satisfy the hippies on every count of animal cruelty we would be starving or worse eat that disgusting vegan stuff.
hitler won after all :/
I just love how often my opposition makes statements like this (especially Hitler is populair). I wonder sometimes if i'm just a slave to the general consensus or if i'm just right when i'm right. Even if the feeding method is banned it will not become the doorway for the demands of "the hippies on every count of animal cruelty". And yes, Hitler was a vegetarian. Doesn't make it evil. More on point, i do favour banning the feeding method. It's unusually cruel, especially just to get something that tastes good (or shit, bad, great, awesome, whatever your opinion is). Let's show our better side and not painfully forcefeed the duck.
As soon as you can tell me that those animals are in immense pain every moment that they are alive, then you can talk about cruelty. For me, I find it cruel that people like you believe you have the right to decide for others what is the "moral" way, when you have no more knowledge of that duck's well being than I do. If you don't like it, don't eat it, don't try to decide for everyone that they oughtn't eat it, because you think it might hurt the poor ducky-wucky. When my son was born, he wasn't putting on enough weight, so they had to force-feed him at the hospital (he had a stomach problem) my sister had twins, and one of them also was losing weight and not eating, so they shoved a tube down that girls throat as well. Guess what, they slept normally, didn't cry out in pain, and put on weight just as they were supposed to. Yes, the end goal may be different, one we force feed to put on weight to live, the other is force fed to put on weight to be killed. But with no knowledge of if the liver is actually creating pain, you can't decide that it is cruel. Sorry, you don't get to decide beyond whether or not you purchase said item.
Well said, i'm tired of people feeling like the have the right to impose their morals on everyone else all the time, it's why we have all these stupid laws nowadays. Seriously, to all these people saying it should be banned, WHO ARE YOU to decide this for everyone? |
|
|
| Incognoto France. May 31 2012 23:39. Posts 1669 | Profile Blog # |
| As someone who doesn't like foie gras all that much, I'm against the ban. I'm not really happy that ducks are tortured in the process, but so what, it tastes good. If you ban foie gras then halal meat should be banned. It's a pretty horrible way to die, having your throat slashed out and being left to bleed. Except in this case the animal doesn't become tastier. Last edit: 2012-05-31 23:39:35 |
|
|
| VelJa France. May 31 2012 23:40. Posts 342 | Profile # |
is that a real debate ?
are you serious ?
Those ducks are born to make foie gras. It's the same things that chicken who never see the sun in big farms, or fish in giant aquatic farms. We need to eat, we are smarter, that's all.
They are animals. Not humans. |
| | [M]illenium.org ~~ Rooting for Liquid`Dota2 ~~ [In memory of ANGRY_KOREA_MAN, best wc3 player] |
|
|
| Agathon France. May 31 2012 23:40. Posts 1378 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 22:50 Silvertine wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 20:38 Emix_Squall wrote:
I do not need to know everything about something to have an opinion. If that were true, none of us could ever have an opinion. OK?
I'm not saying morals are unimportant, they're practically vital for society. I'm saying compared to "cultural differences" ie "is it really OK to put ketchup on this?", it's easier to relate to animal cruelty because we ourselves feel pain and we know it's not enjoyable. It's less complex than "true purpose" of a potter or a man who shoes horses.
I don't think my opinion shall prevail. I've spent too long arguing with people to think that. I usually stay away from threads like this. I was just in the mood to share today. I realize there's no such thing as "winning" an argument. All you can hope for, especially in vague morality threads like this, is that you gained a few converts, or enforced someone's beliefs through strength of argument.
The "I don't tell you how to do your job, don't tell me how to do mine" argument is categorically retarded, because you might be terrible at your job.
You feel strongly about this, you are yourself unable to "stfu", so tell me, what are the cultural implications of banning foie-gras?
And finally, being French myself, it would be too complicated to explain it all but let's just say Foie-Gras is too important in many ways in France for me to listen to people (not targeting at anyone, that's a general "people") who have never seen a real goose/duck talking about animal cruelty and how we should stop this inhuman treatments.
How could it be that complicated and why should anyone find a mere sense of tradition so convincing? There are thousands of immoral customs that have successfully been discarded. You can be sure that there were people defending them with the same logic that you're employing now. What difference does it make whether someone has seen a duck or a goose before? I've never seen a seal but I'm pretty sure people shouldn't be clubbing them. And besides, how many people haven't seen both regularly?
Show nested quote +Not saying it's a gentle process, far from it, but it's not like the duck was screaming in pain for the next 4 hours
Do you really think that's an intelligent standard? You don't have to guess, it's a fact.
Show nested quote +but once they are, it just takes them a few minutes to recover and they seem to be doing perfectly fine after.
You really don't have any way of knowing that. Even if it was true it doesn't mean that the animal wasn't in horrible pain. There's all sorts of abuse that doesn't cause permanent damage and can be recovered from in minutes.
Sheeps don't like to be croped either. But it's necessary for their health. Should we ban sheep croping because some humans piss them off each spring?
Did you ever hug a baby sheep or pig? It hates it and scream like a human baby. Should we ban baby animals huging because they are pissed to be taken in humans arms?
Did you went in a horse ranch? When you ride an horse for the first time, it's express it's feeling in a pretty obvious and brutal way. Should we ban horse riding for this reason? (plus i doubt that an horse has a great pleasure having a 80kg man on his back beating it's stomac or ass to make it run faster...out of topic, it always make me smile when some people blame me because i heat horse meat...)
Most of our relationships with animals could be considered like something crual if we follow your steps.
|
| | "C'est au pied du mur, qu'on voit le mieux...le mur". |
|
|
| Emix_Squall France. May 31 2012 23:43. Posts 644 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 22:50 Silvertine wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 20:38 Emix_Squall wrote:
I do not need to know everything about something to have an opinion. If that were true, none of us could ever have an opinion. OK?
I'm not saying morals are unimportant, they're practically vital for society. I'm saying compared to "cultural differences" ie "is it really OK to put ketchup on this?", it's easier to relate to animal cruelty because we ourselves feel pain and we know it's not enjoyable. It's less complex than "true purpose" of a potter or a man who shoes horses.
I don't think my opinion shall prevail. I've spent too long arguing with people to think that. I usually stay away from threads like this. I was just in the mood to share today. I realize there's no such thing as "winning" an argument. All you can hope for, especially in vague morality threads like this, is that you gained a few converts, or enforced someone's beliefs through strength of argument.
The "I don't tell you how to do your job, don't tell me how to do mine" argument is categorically retarded, because you might be terrible at your job.
You feel strongly about this, you are yourself unable to "stfu", so tell me, what are the cultural implications of banning foie-gras?
And finally, being French myself, it would be too complicated to explain it all but let's just say Foie-Gras is too important in many ways in France for me to listen to people (not targeting at anyone, that's a general "people") who have never seen a real goose/duck talking about animal cruelty and how we should stop this inhuman treatments.
How could it be that complicated and why should anyone find a mere sense of tradition so convincing? There are thousands of immoral customs that have successfully been discarded. You can be sure that there were people defending them with the same logic that you're employing now. What difference does it make whether someone has seen a duck or a goose before? I've never seen a seal but I'm pretty sure people shouldn't be clubbing them. And besides, how many people haven't seen both regularly?
Show nested quote +Not saying it's a gentle process, far from it, but it's not like the duck was screaming in pain for the next 4 hours
Do you really think that's an intelligent standard? You don't have to guess, it's a fact.
Show nested quote +but once they are, it just takes them a few minutes to recover and they seem to be doing perfectly fine after.
You really don't have any way of knowing that. Even if it was true it doesn't mean that the animal wasn't in horrible pain. There's all sorts of abuse that doesn't cause permanent damage and can be recovered from in minutes.
That's exactly the kind of retarded behaviour I've been talking about all along. Kids with no idea what they're talking about bringing the all mighty "it's a fact" argument to support whatever they want to support (and they will probably change their mind within the next couple of hours) with not even the slightest argument to back them up .... oh wait ... yes they got arguments because they got Wikipedia ....Last edit: 2012-05-31 23:45:19 |
|
|
| elt Thailand. May 31 2012 23:45. Posts 486 | Profile # |
On May 31 2012 23:21 Myles wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 23:07 Requizen wrote:
I'm somewhat torn when it comes to these things. Of course I don't like mistreating animals, but it feels somewhat odd to call them out on that when you know the animals are going to be killed anyway. If you're raising an animal with the expressed purpose of it being killed and eaten, I have a hard time calling anything forced onto it "inhumane". I'm an animal lover, but I can separate animals that are cared for and loved from those that are food. I don't feel bad about biting into a steak, and I don't get flustered over whether or not the cow was pampered before they killed it and sliced it into tasty chunks.
Dunno, maybe I've just become a bit detached from some things lately.
Even if the animal is being raised just be killed, that shouldn't mean it's ok for them to live in misery until that fateful day. There's nothing inherently wrong with killing an animal for food, but it wrong for them to live a life suffering because of that, imo ofc.
Have you bought non-free range chicken at the supermarket? Been to KFC at all?
Those chickens live a far worse lives than ducks or geese that produce foie gras. |
| |
|
| emythrel United Kingdom. May 31 2012 23:47. Posts 2305 | Profile Blog # |
my personal stance on this stuff is pretty simple...
We breed animals specifically to be killed and eaten, they would not be alive in most cases if we did not. Does treating animals well make them taste better when dead? If yes, by all means lets treat them like kings. If no, then I really don't care if they have a high standard of living or not, what I care about is whether I can afford to eat it or not.
I am sure that most people think my views are pretty harsh but in the UK we think eating a dog is abhorrent, in other places around the world it is not so. Same with cows, sheep, pigs etc etc etc. One man's trash is another man's dinner and all that. |
| | When there is nothing left to lose but your dignity, it is already gone. |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
SC2Links Mobile App …
